Assessment of adherence to the national stress ulcer prophylaxis guidelines: A cross-sectional analysis

Background

Clinical guidelines support the use of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in patients at risk of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding such as those with coagulopathy, renal replacement therapy, and mechanical ventilation. Despite the observed benefits of SUP, its overuse has been highly associated with serious adverse effects.

Objective

To assess the adherence to the national SUP guidelines in a tertiary hospital in Saudi Arabia.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted using electronic health records at King Fahad Specialist Hospital (KFSH), Buraydah, Saudi Arabia. We collected the data from January 1st to December 31st, 2020. Adult patients aged 18 and older who received SUP prescriptions were included. Descriptive analysis was performed to assess the adherence to the guidelines and to explore the factors associated with SUP use in a hospital-based setting.

Results

A total of 424 patients were enrolled in this study. The median age of patients was 55.2 years old. Only 54% of patients were candidates for SUP. Internal medicine and surgery wards ranked the highest in prescribing SUP at 34.2% and 30.4%, respectively. The most common major criterion to start SUP was the concomitant use of two or more of these medications (anticoagulants, aspirin, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), corticosteroids, and antidepressants) followed by using NSAIDs or corticosteroids by older adult patients aged (≥65 years) or have GI bleeding history at 43.2% and 21.5%, respectively.

Conclusion

The observed overuse of anti-ulcer drugs (AUD) indicates a need for greater adherence to SUP guidelines. Areas of improvement can be implemented to ensure appropriate adherence to SUP guidelines to control the costs and avoid unnecessary anti-ulcer-related adverse effects.

Prophylactic acid suppressants in patients with primary neurologic injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

Neurocritical care patients are at risk of stress-induced gastrointestinal ulceration. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in critically ill adults admitted with a primary neurologic injury.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SUP with histamine-2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) or proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) to placebo/no prophylaxis, as well as to each other. The primary outcome was in-ICU gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). Predefined secondary outcomes were all-cause 30-day mortality, ICU length of stay (LOS), nosocomial pneumonia, and other complications.

RESULTS

We identified 14 relevant trials enrolling 1036 neurocritical care patients; 11 trials enrolling 930 patients were included in the meta-analysis. H2RAs resulted in a lower incidence of GIB as compared to placebo or no prophylaxis (Risk ratio [RR] 0.42, 95% CI 0.30-0.58; p < 0.001); PPIs with a lower risk of GIB compared to placebo/no prophylaxis (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.23-0.59; p < 0.001). No significant difference was observed in GIB comparing PPIs with H2RAs (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.26-1.06; p = 0.07; I² = 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

In neurocritical care patients, the overall high or unclear risk of bias of individual trials, the low event rates, and modest sample sizes preclude strong clinical inferences about the utility of SUP.

Indications for the Use of Proton Pump Inhibitors for Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis and Peptic Ulcer Bleeding in Hospitalized Patients

Proton pump inhibitors are widely used throughout the world for the treatment of gastrointestinal disorders that are related to acid secretion, such as peptic ulcer disease and dyspepsia. Another common indication for proton pump inhibitors is stress ulcer prophylaxis. Proton pump inhibitors have proven efficacy for the treatment of acid-related gastrointestinal disorders, but there is concern that their use may be associated with the development of significant complications, such as fractures, Clostridium difficile infection, acute kidney injury, chronic kidney disease, and hypomagnesemia. Proton pump inhibitors are overused in the hospital setting, both for stress ulcer prophylaxis and gastrointestinal bleeding, and then they are often inappropriately continued after discharge from the hospital. This narrative review article outlines the evidence surrounding appropriate proton pump inhibitor use for stress ulcer prophylaxis and peptic ulcer bleeding.

Efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors versus histamine-2 receptor blockers in the cardiac surgical population: insights from the PEPTIC trial

OBJECTIVES

The comparative effectiveness and safety of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) versus histamine-2 receptor blockers for stress ulcer prophylaxis in the cardiac surgical intensive care unit population is uncertain. Although the Proton Pump Inhibitors versus Histamine-2 Receptor Blockers for Ulcer Prophylaxis Therapy in the Intensive Care Unit (PEPTIC) trial reported a higher risk of mortality in the PPI arm with no difference in gastrointestinal bleeding, detailed information on surgical variables and clinically relevant surgical subgroups was not available.

METHODS

The analysis included all Canadian cardiac surgery patients enrolled in the PEPTIC trial. Data were electronically linked using unique patient identifiers to a clinical information system. Outcomes of interest included in-hospital mortality, gastrointestinal bleeding, Clostridium difficile infections, ventilator-associated conditions and length of stay.

RESULTS

We studied 823 (50.6%) randomized to PPIs and 805 (49.4%) to histamine-2-receptor blockers. In the intention-to-treat analysis, there were no differences in hospital mortality [PPI: 4.3% vs histamine-2 receptor blockers: 4.8%, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55-1.70], gastrointestinal bleeding (3.9% vs 4.8%, aOR 1.09, 95% CI 0.66-1.81), C. difficile infections (0.9% vs 0.1%, aOR 0.18, 95% CI 0.02-1.59), ventilator-associated conditions (1.6% vs 1.7%, aOR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85-1.00) or median length of stay (9.2 vs 9.8 days, adjusted risk ratio 1.06, 85% CI 0.99-1.13). No significant treatment differences were observed among subgroups of interest or per-protocol populations.

CONCLUSIONS

In a secondary analysis of cardiac surgery patients enrolled in the PEPTIC trial in Canada, no differences in effectiveness or safety were observed between use of PPIs and histamine-2 receptor blockers for stress ulcer prophylaxis.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

anzctr.org.au identifier: ACTRN12616000481471.

The effects of pantoprazole vs. placebo on 1-year outcomes, resource use and employment status in ICU patients at risk for gastrointestinal bleeding: a secondary analysis of the SUP-ICU trial

PURPOSE

Patients in intensive care units (ICUs) are at risk of stress-related gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP), including proton pump inhibitors, is widely used in the attempt to prevent this. In this secondary analysis of Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in Intensive Care Unit (SUP-ICU) trial, we assessed 1-year outcomes in the pantoprazole vs. placebo groups.

METHODS

In the SUP-ICU trial, 3298 acutely admitted ICU patients at risk of GI bleeding were randomly allocated, stratified for site, to pantoprazole or placebo. In this secondary analysis, we assessed clinically important GI bleedings in ICU and 1-year mortality, health care resource use (e.g. readmission with GI bleeding, use of home care and general practitioner), health care costs, and employment status for the Danish participants using registry data.

RESULTS

Among the 2099 Danish participants, 2092 had data in the registries; 1045 allocated to pantoprazole and 1047 to placebo. The number of clinically important GI bleedings in ICU was 1.9 percentage points [95% CI 0.3-3.5] lower in the pantoprazole group vs. the placebo group, but none of the 1-year outcomes differed statistically significantly between groups, including total health care costs (€1954 [- 2992 to 6899]), readmission with GI bleeding (- 0.005 admissions [- 0.016 to 0.005]), 1-year mortality (- 0.013 percentage points [- 0.051 to 0.026]), and employment (- 0.178 weeks [- 0.390 to 0.034]).

CONCLUSION

Among ICU patients at risk of GI bleeding, pantoprazole reduced clinically important GI bleeding in ICU, but this did not translate into a reduction in 1-year mortality, health care resource use or improvements in employment status.

Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in Critically Ill Adult Patients with Sepsis at Risk of Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines recommend stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) for patients with sepsis who have gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding risks, however, the effect of SUP has not been specially studied in these patients.

AIMS

The purpose of this study is to determine the effects of SUP versus no prophylaxis on patient-important outcomes in critically ill adult patients with sepsis who have risk factors for GI bleeding.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study utilized data from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III database. We compared those who received SUP with proton pump inhibitors or histamine-2 receptor antagonists for ≥3 days with those who received no prophylaxis. Propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted to make comparisons between groups with similar distributions of study variables. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 7,744 patients were included in the analysis, with 1,088 (14.0%) in the non-SUP group and 6,656 (86.0%) in the SUP group. A 1:1 PSM created 866 patients in each cohort. No significant differences were noted between the two groups with regard to in-hospital mortality (22.3%vs.20.4%, p=0.379), GI bleeding (4.7%vs.6.4%, p=0.172), pneumonia(38.9%vs.36.6%,p=0.346), Clostridium difficile infection(6.4% vs. 8.9%, p=0.0.057), or ICU length of stay (LOS) (4.2 d vs. 4.6 d, p=0.394).

CONCLUSIONS

Among critically ill, septic, adult patients at risk for gastrointestinal bleeding, stress ulcer prophylaxis showed no effect on hospital mortality, the rate of GI bleeding, pneumonia, CDI, and ICU LOS. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Physicians' knowledge, attitude, and prescribing behavior regarding stress ulcer prophylaxis in China: a multi-center study

Background

Perioperative patients are at risk of developing stress ulcers (SU), which can cause clinically important bleeding. Stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) is widely applied to the patients in Intensive care unit (ICU) as well as the general ward, so it may lead to overmedication. However, there have been no surveys regarding SUP knowledge or prescribing habits.

Objective

Our study assessed the knowledge, attitudes, and prescribing behavior of the surgeons toward perioperative patients regarding SUP and determined factors associated with low knowledge and high level of prescribing behaviors.

Methods

We performed a cross-sectional survey using questionnaires, randomly sampling 1266 surgeons on their current SUP practices.

Results

Proton pump inhibitors for SUP were used the most (94%); 43% used lansoprazole. Guideline awareness was inconsistent; the most familiar guideline was the National Medical Journal of China, and 46% were unaware of any guidelines. The predictors of low knowledge score regarding SUP in multivariable analysis were the hospital grade (p = 0.000), the type of hospital (p = 0.044), attendance at continuing education programs (p = 0.037), the awareness of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for SUP (p = 0.000). Twenty-one percent of physicians were high prescribers. High prescribing behavior was associated with hospital grade(p = 0.000), education level(p = 0.010) and attendance at continuing education programs (p = 0.000).

Conclusion

We found that most surgeons used SUP, primarily proton pump inhibitors. However, surgeons knew little about the SUP guidelines, which may lead to insufficient SUP knowledge and overmedication. In addition, hospital grade, the type of hospital and attendance at continuing education programs may also affect the low knowledge of SUP. Hospital grade, education level and attendance at continuing education programs may affect high prescribing behavior.

Current practice of stress ulcer prophylaxis in a surgical patient cohort in a German university hospital

Introduction

Stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) has been a widespread practice both in intensive care units (ICU) and internal wards at the beginning of the twenty-first century. Clinical data suggests an important overuse of acid suppressive therapy (AST) for this indication. Data on current clinical practice of SUP in surgical patients in a non-ICU setting are spares. In the light of a growing number of reports on serious side effects of AST, this study evaluates the use of AST for SUP in a normal surgical ward in a German university hospital.

Methods

Between January 2016 and June 2016, SUP was analysed retrospectively in 1132 consecutive patients of the Department of Surgery of the Universitätsmedizin Greifswald.

Results

The patients managed with and without SUP were similar with respect to demographic data and treatment with anticoagulants, SSRI and glucocorticoids. Patients with SUP were treated more frequently by cyclooxygenase inhibiting drugs (NSAID, COX2-inhibitors), were more frequently treated in the intermediated care unit and had a longer hospital stay. Risk factors for the development of stress ulcers were similarly present in patient groups managed with and without SUP. About 85.7–99.6% of patients were given SUP without an adequate risk for stress ulcer development, depending on the method used for risk assessment.

Discussion

Still today, SUP is widely overused in non-ICU surgical patients. Information campaigns on risk factors for stress ulcer development and standard operating procedures for SUP are required to limit potential side effects and increased treatment costs.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00423-021-02325-3.

Proton pump inhibitors versus histamine-2 receptor blockers for stress ulcer prophylaxis in patients with sepsis: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to compare the efficacy and risks of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) versus histamine-2 receptor blocker (H2B) use for stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in critically ill patients with sepsis and risk factors for gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB).

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, we used the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III Clinical Database to identify critically ill adult patients with sepsis who had at least one risk factor for GIB and received either an H2B or PPI for ≥48 hours. Propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted to balance baseline characteristics. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

After 1:1 PSM, 1056 patients were included in the H2B and PPI groups. The PPI group had higher in-hospital mortality (23.8% vs. 17.5%), GIB (8.9% vs. 1.6%), and pneumonia (49.6% vs. 41.6%) rates than the H2B group. After adjusting for risk factors of GIB and pneumonia, PPI use was associated with a 1.28-times increased risk of in-hospital mortality, 5.89-times increased risk of GIB, and 1.32-times increased risk of pneumonia.

CONCLUSIONS

Among critically ill adult patients with sepsis at risk for GIB, SUP with PPIs was associated with higher in-hospital mortality and higher risk of GIB and pneumonia than H2Bs.

Proton Pump Inhibitors Versus Histamine-2 Receptor Antagonists Likely Increase Mortality in Critical Care: An Updated Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding is common among the critically ill. Recently, the Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPIs) vs. Histamine-2 Receptor Blockers for Ulcer Prophylaxis Therapy in the Intensive Care Unit (PEPTIC) trial suggested PPIs might increase mortality. We performed an updated meta-analysis to further inform discussion.

METHODS

We leveraged 2 recent systematic reviews to identify randomized controlled trials directly comparing PPIs and H-2 Receptor Antagonists (H2RAs) for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients and reporting mortality. We extracted mortality data from each study and meta-analyzed them with the PEPTIC trial using a random effects model.

RESULTS

Of 28,559 total patients, 14,436 (50.5%) were allocated to PPI and 14,123 to H2RAs (49.5%). Compared to H2RAs, the pooled relative risk for mortality was 1.05 (95% confidence interval 1.00-1.10) with an estimated risk difference for mortality of 9 additional deaths per 1000 patients exposed to PPI (95% confidence interval 0-18); heterogeneity was low (I² = 0%; P = 0.826).

CONCLUSIONS

Stress ulcer prophylaxis with PPIs likely increases mortality compared to H2RAs. Whether stress ulcer prophylaxis is beneficial in critical care remains open to further study.

Stress-Related Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients with Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: A Multicenter Retrospective Observational Study

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Stress-related mucosal bleeding (SRMB) occurs in approximately 2-4% of critically ill patients. Patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) have a (diffuse) space-occupying lesion, are critically ill, often require mechanical ventilation, and frequently receive anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy after aneurysm embolization, all of which may be risk factors for SRMB. However, no studies have evaluated SRMB in patients with aSAH. Aims of the study were to determine the incidence of SRMB in aSAH patients, evaluate the effect of acid suppression on SRMB, and identify specific risk factors for SRMB.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, retrospective, observational study conducted across 17 centers. Each center reviewed up to 50 of the most recent cases of aSAH. Patients with length of stay (LOS) < 48 h or active GI bleeding on admission were excluded. Variables related to demographics, aSAH severity, gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, provision of SRMB prophylaxis, adverse events, intensive care unit (ICU), and hospital LOS were collected for the first 21 days of admission or until hospital discharge, whichever came first. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. A multivariate logistic regression modeling was utilized to examine the relationship between specific risk factors and the incidence of clinically important GI bleeding in patients with aSAH.

RESULTS

A total of 627 patients were included. The overall incidence of clinically important GI bleeding was 4.9%. Of the patients with clinically important GI bleeding, 19 (61%) received pharmacologic prophylaxis prior to evidence of GI bleeding, while 12 (39%) were not on pharmacologic prophylaxis at the onset of GI bleeding. Patients who received an acid suppressant agent were less likely to experience GI bleeding than patients who did not receive pharmacologic prophylaxis prior to evidence of bleeding (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18-0.83). The multivariate regression analysis identified any instance of elevated intracranial pressure, creatinine clearance < 60 ml/min and the incidence of cerebral vasospasm as specific risk factors associated with GI bleeding. Cerebral vasospasm has not previously been described as a risk for GI bleeding (OR 2.5 95% CI 1.09-5.79).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinically important GI bleeding occurred in 4.9% of patients with aSAH, similar to the general critical care population. Risk factors associated with GI bleeding were prolonged mechanical ventilation (> 48 h), creatinine clearance < 60 ml/min, presence of coagulopathy, elevation of intracranial pressure, and cerebral vasospasm. Further prospective research is needed to confirm this observation within this patient population.

Efficacy and safety of gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients: an updated systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials

PURPOSE

Motivated by a new randomized trial (the PEPTIC trial) that raised the issue of an increase in mortality with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) relative to histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), we updated our prior systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) addressing the impact of pharmacological gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients.

METHODS

We searched for randomized controlled trials that examined the efficacy and safety of gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis with PPIs, H2RAs, or sucralfate versus one another or placebo or no prophylaxis in adult critically ill patients. We performed Bayesian random-effects NMA and conducted analyses using all PEPTIC data as well as a restricted analysis using only PEPTIC data from high compliance centers. We used the GRADE approach to quantify absolute effects and assess the certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

Seventy-four trials enrolling 39 569 patients proved eligible. Both PPIs (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% credible interval 0.93 to 1.14, moderate certainty) and H2RAs (RR 0.98, 0.89 to 1.08, moderate certainty) probably have little or no impact on mortality compared with no prophylaxis. There may be no important difference between PPIs and H2RAs on mortality (RR 1.05, 0.97 to 1.14, low certainty), the 95% credible interval of the complete analysis has not excluded an important increase in mortality with PPIs. Both PPIs (RR 0.46, 0.29 to 0.66) and H2RAs (RR 0.67, 0.48 to 0.94) probably reduce clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding; the magnitude of reduction is probably greater in PPIs than H2RAs (RR 0.69, 0.45 to 0.93), and the difference may be important in higher, but not lower bleeding risk patients. PPIs (RR 1.08, 0.88 to 1.45, low certainty) and H2RAs (RR 1.07, 0.85 to 1.37, low certainty) may have no important impact on pneumonia compared with no prophylaxis.

CONCLUSION

This updated NMA confirmed that PPIs and H2RAs are most likely to have a similar effect on mortality compared to each other and compared to no prophylaxis; however, the possibility that PPIs may slightly increase mortality cannot be excluded (low certainty evidence). PPIs and H2RAs probably achieve important reductions in clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding; for higher bleeding risk patients, the greater benefit of PPIs over H2RAs may be important. PPIs or H2RAs may not result in important increases in pneumonia but the certainty of evidence is low.

Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in Neurocritical Care

Stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) with acid-suppressive drug therapy is widely utilized in critically ill patients following neurologic injury for the prevention of clinically important stress-related gastrointestinal bleeding (CIB). Data supporting SUP, however, largely originates from studies conducted during an era where practices were vastly different than what is considered routine by today's standard. This is particularly true in neurocritical care patients. In fact, the routine provision of SUP has been challenged due to an increasing prevalence of adverse drug events with acid-suppressive therapy and the perception that CIB rates are sparse. This narrative review will discuss current controversies with SUP as they apply to neurocritical care patients. Specifically, the pathophysiology, prevalence, and risk factors for CIB along with the comparative efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of acid-suppressive therapy will be described.

Outcomes of Prophylactic Pantoprazole in Adult Intensive Care Unit Patients Receiving Dialysis: Results of a Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Intensive care unit (ICU) patients with acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy (RRT) are considered at high risk of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) is often prescribed. We aimed to assess the incidence of GI bleeding and effects of SUP in these patients.

METHODS

We assessed GI bleeding in ICU patients receiving RRT at baseline (and at any time in the ICU) and effects of prophylactic pantoprazole versus placebo in the international SUP in the ICU (SUP-ICU) trial. All analyses were conducted according to a published protocol and statistical analysis plan.

RESULTS

Data of 3,291 acutely admitted adult ICU patients with one or more risk factors for GI bleeding randomized to pantoprazole or placebo intravenously once daily during ICU stay (until ICU discharge, death, or a maximum of 90 days) were analyzed. Some 20 out of 258 (7.8%, 95% CI 4.5-11.1%) and 52 out of 568 (9.2%, 95% CI 6.8-11.6%) of the patients receiving RRT at baseline and at any time in ICU, respectively, developed clinically important GI bleeding in the ICU. We did not observe statistically significant differences in the intervention effect (pantoprazole vs. placebo) in the proportion of patients with clinically important GI bleeding, clinically important events, infectious adverse events, use of interventions to stop GI bleeding, or 90-day mortality in patients with versus without RRT at baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

In adult ICU patients receiving RRT at baseline, we observed high incidences of clinically important GI bleeding, but did not observe effects of pantoprazole versus placebo in this subgroup.

Stress ulcer prophylaxis with proton pump inhibitors or histamin-2 receptor antagonists in adult intensive care patients: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

PURPOSE

Most intensive care unit (ICU) patients receive stress ulcer prophylaxis. We present updated evidence on the effects of prophylactic proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine 2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) versus placebo/no prophylaxis on patient-important outcomes in adult ICU patients.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) of randomised clinical trials assessing the effects of PPI/H2RA versus placebo/no prophylaxis on mortality, gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, serious adverse events (SAEs), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), myocardial ischemia, pneumonia, and Clostridium (Cl.) difficile enteritis in ICU patients.

RESULTS

We identified 42 trials randomising 6899 ICU patients; 3 had overall low risk of bias. We did not find an effect of stress ulcer prophylaxis on mortality [relative risk 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94-1.14; TSA-adjusted CI 0.94-1.14], but the occurrence of any GI bleeding was reduced as compared with placebo/no prophylaxis (0.60, 95% CI 0.47-0.77; TSA-adjusted CI 0.36-1.00). The conventional meta-analysis indicated that clinically important GI bleeding was reduced (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.48-0.81), but the TSA-adjusted CI 0.35-1.13 indicated lack of firm evidence. The effects of stress ulcer prophylaxis on SAEs, HRQoL, pneumonia, myocardial ischemia and Cl. difficile enteritis are uncertain.

CONCLUSIONS

In this updated systematic review, we were able to refute a relative change of 20% of mortality. The occurrence of GI bleeding was reduced, but we lack firm evidence for a reduction in clinically important GI bleeding. The effects on SAEs, HRQoL, pneumonia, myocardial ischemia and Cl. difficile enteritis remain inconclusive.

Acid Suppression to Prevent Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients With Ventricular Assist Devices

BACKGROUND

The high incidence of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) in patients with ventricular assist devices (VAD) is well known, but there is limited evidence to support the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine receptor antagonists (H2RA) for preventing GIB in patients with VAD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The surgical ICU and VAD databases within a large regional academic cardiac mechanical support and transplant center were queried for patients who underwent VAD implantation between 2010 and 2014. An observational cohort study was conducted to identify which acid suppressing drug regimen was associated with the fewest number of GIB events within 30 d after VAD implantation: PPI, H2RA, or neither. Secondary outcomes included timing, etiology, and location of GIB. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare treatment cohorts to GIB. Odds ratios, 95% confidence intervals, and P-values were reported from the model.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-eight patients were included for final analysis, 19 of which had a GIB within 30 days of VAD implantation. Both H2RA and PPI use were associated with reduced GIB compared with the cohort with no acid suppressive therapy. In the multivariate analysis, the PPI cohort showed a statistically significant reduction in GIB (Odds ratio 0.18 [95% confidence interval 0.04-0.79] P = 0.026).

CONCLUSIONS

Using PPI postoperatively in patients with new VAD was associated with a reduced incidence of GIB. Given that GIB is a known complication after VAD placement, clinicians should consider the use of acid suppressive therapy for primary prevention.

Use of Enteral Nutrition for Gastrointestinal Bleeding Prophylaxis in the Critically Ill: Review of Current Literature

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review provides a comprehensive overview of the etiology of stress-related mucosal disease, current acid suppression therapy recommendations, and the role enteral nutrition may play in disease prevention.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent literature indicates enteral nutrition may prevent complications of stress-related mucosal disease by increasing splanchnic blood flow, enhancing gastrointestinal motility, and promoting cellular immunity and integrity through local nutrient delivery. Stress-related mucosal disease is a common complication of hospitalization in the critically ill which may lead to overt gastrointestinal bleeding and enhanced mortality. High-risk patients have historically been prescribed acid suppression therapy, though enteral nutrition may also have a role in disease mitigation.

Stress ulcer prophylaxis in intensive care unit patients receiving enteral nutrition: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Pharmacologic stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) is recommended in critically ill patients with high risk of stress-related gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. However, as to patients receiving enteral feeding, the preventive effect of SUP is not well-known. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the effect of pharmacologic SUP in enterally fed patients on stress-related GI bleeding and other clinical outcomes.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane database from inception through 30 Sep 2017. Eligible trials were RCTs comparing pharmacologic SUP to either placebo or no prophylaxis in enterally fed patients in the ICU. Results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with accompanying 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity, subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis and publication bias were explored.

Results

Seven studies (n = 889 patients) were included. There was no statistically significant difference in GI bleeding (RR 0.80; 95% CI, 0.49 to 1.31, p = 0.37) between groups. This finding was confirmed by further subgroup analyses and sensitivity analysis. In addition, SUP had no effect on overall mortality (RR 1.21; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.56, p = 0.14), Clostridium difficile infection (RR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.25 to 3.19, p = 0.86), length of stay in the ICU (MD 0.04 days; 95% CI, −0.79 to 0.87, p = 0.92), duration of mechanical ventilation (MD −0.38 days; 95% CI, −1.48 to 0.72, p = 0.50), but was associated with an increased risk of hospital-acquired pneumonia (RR 1.53; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.27; p = 0.03).

Conclusions

Our results suggested that in patients receiving enteral feeding, pharmacologic SUP is not beneficial and combined interventions may even increase the risk of nosocomial pneumonia.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-017-1937-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Enteral nutrition as stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: A randomized controlled exploratory study

PURPOSE

We investigated whether early enteral nutrition alone may be sufficient prophylaxis against stress-related gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in mechanically ventilated patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Prospective, double blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, exploratory study that included mechanically ventilated patients in medical ICUs of two academic hospitals. Intravenous pantoprazole and early enteral nutrition were compared to placebo and early enteral nutrition as stress-ulcer prophylaxis. The incidences of clinically significant and overt GI bleeding were compared in the two groups.

RESULTS

124 patients were enrolled in the study. After exclusion of 22 patients, 102 patients were included in analysis: 55 patients in the treatment group and 47 patients in the placebo group. Two patients (one from each group) showed signs of overt GI bleeding (overall incidence 1.96%), and both patients experienced a drop of >3 points in hematocrit in a 24-hour period indicating a clinically significant GI bleed. There was no statistical significant difference in the incidence of overt or significant GI bleeding between groups (p=0.99).

CONCLUSION

We found no benefit when pantoprazole is added to early enteral nutrition in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. The routine prescription of acid-suppressive therapy in critically ill patients who tolerate early enteral nutrition warrants further evaluation.

Stress ulcer prophylaxis versus placebo or no prophylaxis in adult hospitalised acutely ill patients-protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Stress ulcer prophylaxis is considered standard of care in many critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, the quality of evidence supporting this has recently been questioned, and clinical equipoise exists. Whether there is overall benefit or harm of stress ulcer prophylaxis in adult hospitalised acutely ill patients is unknown. Accordingly, we aim to assess patient-important benefits and harms of stress ulcer prophylaxis versus placebo or no treatment in adult hospitalised acutely ill patients with high risk of gastrointestinal bleeding irrespective of hospital setting.

METHODS/DESIGN

We will conduct a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis and assess use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine-2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) in any dose, formulation and duration. We will accept placebo or no prophylaxis as control interventions. The participants will be adult hospitalised acutely ill patients with high risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. We will systematically search the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, BIOSIS and Epistemonikos for relevant literature. We will follow the recommendations by the Cochrane Collaboration and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. The risk of systematic errors (bias) and random errors will be assessed, and the overall quality of evidence will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

DISCUSSION

There is a need for a high-quality systematic review to summarise the benefits and harms of stress ulcer prophylaxis in hospitalised patients to inform practice and future research. Although stress ulcer prophylaxis is used worldwide, no firm evidence for benefit or harm as compared to placebo or no treatments has been established. Critical illness is a continuum not limited to the ICU setting, which is why it is important to assess the benefits and harms of stress ulcer prophylaxis in a wider perspective than exclusively in ICU patients.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42017055676.

Stress ulcer prophylaxis with a proton pump inhibitor versus placebo in critically ill patients (SUP-ICU trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

Critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) are at risk of clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding, and acid suppressants are frequently used prophylactically. However, stress ulcer prophylaxis may increase the risk of serious adverse events and, additionally, the quantity and quality of evidence supporting the use of stress ulcer prophylaxis is low. The aim of the SUP-ICU trial is to assess the benefits and harms of stress ulcer prophylaxis with a proton pump inhibitor in adult patients in the ICU. We hypothesise that stress ulcer prophylaxis reduces the rate of gastrointestinal bleeding, but increases rates of nosocomial infections and myocardial ischaemia. The overall effect on mortality is unpredictable.

Methods/design

The SUP-ICU trial is an investigator-initiated, pragmatic, international, multicentre, randomised, blinded, parallel-group trial of stress ulcer prophylaxis with a proton pump inhibitor versus placebo (saline) in 3350 acutely ill ICU patients at risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. The primary outcome measure is 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes include the proportion of patients with clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding, pneumonia, Clostridium difficile infection or myocardial ischaemia, days alive without life support in the 90-day period, serious adverse reactions, 1-year mortality, and health economic analyses.

The sample size will enable us to detect a 20 % relative risk difference (5 % absolute risk difference) in 90-day mortality assuming a 25 % event rate with a risk of type I error of 5 % and power of 90 %. The trial will be externally monitored according to Good Clinical Practice standards. Interim analyses will be performed after 1650 and 2500 patients.

Conclusion

The SUP-ICU trial will provide high-quality data on the benefits and harms of stress ulcer prophylaxis with a proton pump inhibitor in critically ill adult patients admitted in the ICU.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02467621.

Reduction in gastrointestinal bleeding by development and implementation of a protocol for stress ulcer prophylaxis: a before-after study

Background

The implementation of a protocol has been associated with improvements in the processes of care in clinical settings. Although stress ulcer prophylaxis is recommended for critically ill patients at high risk, there is currently no consensus on its use. Therefore, we herein developed a protocol for stress ulcer prophylaxis, and evaluated therapeutic outcomes in a before-after study.

Methods

The protocol was developed by considering the effectiveness, disadvantages (including adverse events) and cost of each agent based on previous findings. Patients who were admitted to the 8-bed emergency intensive care unit (ICU) of our hospital for more than 24 h during the year before and after implementation of the study were eligible. Each investigation item was evaluated retrospectively.

Results

There were 211 and 238 study patients before and after implementation of the protocol, respectively. The baseline characteristics of patients on/during ICU admission were similar in the two groups. The proportion of medicated patients was 79.6 % before and 84.5 % after protocol implementation. Before implementation of the protocol, 4.3 % of patients developed clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding, and this incidence decreased significantly to 0.8 % after its implementation (P = 0.019). The frequency at which medication was discontinued due to adverse events was slightly lower after implementation of the protocol. No significant differences were observed in the costs of stress ulcer prophylactic agents or mortality in the ICU.

Conclusions

The results of the present study indicated that the development and implementation of a protocol for stress ulcer prophylaxis, for which there are currently no criteria, improved a main outcome, clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding.

Impact of a clinical pharmacist stress ulcer prophylaxis management program on inappropriate use in hospitalized patients

PURPOSE

Appropriate utilization of stress ulcer prophylaxis should be limited to high-risk, intensive care unit (ICU) patients. However, inappropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis use among all hospitalized patients remains a concern. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical and economic impact of a novel pharmacist-managed stress ulcer prophylaxis program in ICU and general ward patients.

METHODS

This retrospective, pre- and poststudy design was conducted in adult ICU and general ward patients at a large academic medical center between January 1, 2011 and January 31, 2012 to compare the rates of inappropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis before and after the implementation of a pharmacist-led stress ulcer prophylaxis management program.

RESULTS

A total of 1134 unique patients consisting of 16,415 patient days were evaluated. The relative reduction in the rate of inappropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis days after program implementation in ICU and general ward patients was 58.3% and 83.5%, respectively (P < .001). The rates of ICU patients inappropriately continued on stress ulcer prophylaxis upon hospital discharge in the pre- and postimplementation groups were 29.9% and 3.6%, respectively (P < .001), whereas general ward patients significantly decreased from 36.2% to 5.4% in the pre- and postimplementation groups, respectively (P < .001). Total inpatient costs associated with all stress ulcer prophylaxis administered was $20,052.70 in the pre- and $3280.49 in the postimplementation group (P < .001), resulting in an estimated cost savings of > $200,000 annually. No differences in clinical outcomes were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of a pharmacist-managed stress ulcer prophylaxis program was associated with a decrease in inappropriate acid suppression rates during hospitalization and upon discharge, as well as significant cost savings.

Pharmacoepidemiology of stress ulcer prophylaxis in the United States and Canada

PURPOSE

This study sought to identify the medication class most commonly prescribed for stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP), assess trends in SUP utilization, and report the use of acid suppressive therapy stratified by bleeding risk.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This multicenter, prospective, point prevalence study reviewed adult patients over a 24-hour period for demographics, medications used for SUP, and risk factors for clinically important bleeding. Stress ulcer prophylaxis was deemed appropriate if acid suppressive therapy was administered to patients at high risk for bleeding or no therapy in patients considered at low bleeding risk. High risk was defined as the presence of mechanical ventilation, coagulopathy, or shock. For patients receiving acid suppression before hospital admission, SUP was considered appropriate if the same drug class was continued regardless of risk factors. A planned subgroup analysis was conducted whereby patients on acid suppressive medications before admission were excluded.

RESULTS

There were 584 patients from 58 intensive care units in 27 hospitals. The most common drug class was proton pump inhibitors (70%). Despite receiving other enteral/oral medications, 36% received intravenous acid suppressive therapy. Overall, SUP was considered appropriate in 78% of patients and 68% when patients on acid suppression before admission were excluded. When stratified by risk, acid suppressive medications were used in 92% of high-risk patients and 71% of low-risk patients.

CONCLUSION

Stress ulcer prophylaxis is frequently administered to patients who are not at high risk for clinically important bleeding. Proton pump inhibitors are the overwhelming first choice among practitioners. Several opportunities exist for improvement regarding the provision of SUP.

Use of acid suppressive therapy in hospitalized non-critically ill patients

AIM

To assess the appropriateness of prescribing acid suppressive therapy (AST) in a general medicine service in a tertiary care hospital.

METHODS

In this retrospective observational study, we reviewed the inpatient records of all patients admitted to the general medical service in a tertiary care hospital in Beirut, Lebanon, from April 1 to May 31, 2011. Treatment with AST was considered appropriate if the patient had a specific indication or appropriate treatment purpose [e.g., gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD), peptic ulcer disease, dyspepsia, acute or suspected gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding]. Appropriate administration of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) was derived from an internal guideline that is based on the American Society of Health System Pharmacists guidelines. Prophylaxis was considered appropriate if a patient had 1 absolute indication (coagulopathy or requiring mechanical ventilation), or 2 or more relative indications (sepsis, occult bleeding, use of high dose corticosteroids, recent use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for more than 3 mo, renal or liver failure, enteral feeding and anticoagulant use).

RESULTS

Of the 153 patient admissions during the study period, 130 patients (85%) were started on AST, out of which 11 (8.5%) had a diagnosis that supports the use of this therapy (GI bleed, gastritis and GERD), 16 (12.3%) had an absolute indication for SUP, 59 (45.4%) had 2 or more relative indications for SUP, and 44 (33.8%) received AST without an appropriate indication. In addition, one patient with an absolute indication for SUP and four with two or more relative indications did not receive AST. Rabeprazole was the most frequently used AST (59.2%), followed by omeprazole (24.6%), esomeprazole (11.6%) and ranitidine (4.6%). The dose of AST was appropriate in 126 patients (96.9%) and the route of administration was appropriate in 123 patients (94.6%). Fifteen of the admitted patients (10%) were discharged on AST, 7 of which (47%) did not have an appropriate indication.

CONCLUSION

AST is overused in hospitalized non-critically ill patients and many patients are discharged on unnecessary AST which can increase cost, drug interactions and adverse events. Potential interventions include implementation of institutional protocols and prescriber education.

Use of acid suppressive therapy in hospitalized non-critically ill patients

AIM: To assess the appropriateness of prescribing acid suppressive therapy (AST) in a general medicine service in a tertiary care hospital.

METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, we reviewed the inpatient records of all patients admitted to the general medical service in a tertiary care hospital in Beirut, Lebanon, from April 1 to May 31, 2011. Treatment with AST was considered appropriate if the patient had a specific indication or appropriate treatment purpose [e.g., gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD), peptic ulcer disease, dyspepsia, acute or suspected gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding]. Appropriate administration of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) was derived from an internal guideline that is based on the American Society of Health System Pharmacists guidelines. Prophylaxis was considered appropriate if a patient had 1 absolute indication (coagulopathy or requiring mechanical ventilation), or 2 or more relative indications (sepsis, occult bleeding, use of high dose corticosteroids, recent use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for more than 3 mo, renal or liver failure, enteral feeding and anticoagulant use).

RESULTS: Of the 153 patient admissions during the study period, 130 patients (85%) were started on AST, out of which 11 (8.5%) had a diagnosis that supports the use of this therapy (GI bleed, gastritis and GERD), 16 (12.3%) had an absolute indication for SUP, 59 (45.4%) had 2 or more relative indications for SUP, and 44 (33.8%) received AST without an appropriate indication. In addition, one patient with an absolute indication for SUP and four with two or more relative indications did not receive AST. Rabeprazole was the most frequently used AST (59.2%), followed by omeprazole (24.6%), esomeprazole (11.6%) and ranitidine (4.6%). The dose of AST was appropriate in 126 patients (96.9%) and the route of administration was appropriate in 123 patients (94.6%). Fifteen of the admitted patients (10%) were discharged on AST, 7 of which (47%) did not have an appropriate indication.

CONCLUSION: AST is overused in hospitalized non-critically ill patients and many patients are discharged on unnecessary AST which can increase cost, drug interactions and adverse events. Potential interventions include implementation of institutional protocols and prescriber education.

Stress ulcer prophylaxis guidelines: Are they being implemented in Lebanese health care centers?

AIM

To evaluate the current practice of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in Lebanese Health care centers.

METHODS

A multi-center prospective chart review study was conducted over 8 mo. A questionnaire was distributed to pharmacy students who collected data on demographics, SUP medications, dose, route, duration and associated risk factors. The appropriateness of SUP use was determined as per American Society of Health-System Pharmacists guidelines. Institutional review board approval was obtained from each hospital center.

RESULTS

A total of 1004 patients were included. 67% of the patients who received prophylaxis did not have an indication for SUP. The majority (71.6%) of the patients who were administered parenteral drugs can tolerate oral medications. Overall, the regimen of acid-suppressant drugs was suboptimal in 87.6% of the sample. This misuse was mainly observed in non-teaching hospitals.

CONCLUSION

This study highlighted the need, in Lebanese hospitals, to establish clinical practice guidelines for the use of SUP; mainly in non-critical care settings.

Clinical and cost impact of intravenous proton pump inhibitor use in non-ICU patients

AIM: To assess the appropriateness of the indication and route of administration of proton-pump-inhibitors (PPIs) and their associated cost impact.

METHODS: Data collection was performed prospectively during a 6-mo period on 340 patients who received omeprazole intravenously during their hospital stay in non-intensive care floors. Updated guidelines were used to assess the appropriateness of the indication and route of administration.

RESULTS: Complete data collection was available for 286 patients which were used to assess intravenous (IV) PPIs utilization. Around 88% of patients were receiving PPIs for claimed stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) indication; of which, only 17% met the guideline criteria for SUP indication, 14% met the criteria for non-steroidal-anti-inflammatory drugs-induced ulcer prophylaxis, while the remaining 69% were identified as having an unjustified indication for PPI use. The initiation of IV PPIs was appropriate in 55% of patients. Half of these patients were candidates for switching to the oral dosage form during their hospitalization, while only 36.7% of these patients were actually switched. The inappropriate initiation of PPIs via the IV route was more likely to take place on the medical floor than the surgical floor (53% vs 36%, P = 0.003). The cost analysis associated with the appropriateness of the indication for PPI use as well as the route of administration of PPI revealed a possible saving of up to $17 732.5 and $14 571, respectively.

CONCLUSION: This study highlights the over-utilization of IV PPIs in non-intensive care unit patients. Restriction of IV PPI use for justified indications and route of administration is recommended.